Social in DCDining, News, Music, Art, Causes and Much More...2015-03-03T02:06:32Zhttp://socialindc.com/feed/atom/WordPressadminhttp://socialindc.com/?p=113142015-03-03T02:06:32Z2015-03-03T01:51:12ZBy Jay Holmes

The basic relationship between the US and Turkey formed in the midst of post-WWII Cold War realities. Since that time, there has been a tug of war between Western-leaning Turkish political factions and pro-Islamist contingents. To understand current US-Turkey relations, we need to also understand the internal shifts that Turkish politics and society have undergone over time.

Turkey and Russia have been imperial rivals since the 1700s. Conflicts between Turkish kingdoms and Russian kingdoms date back to ancient times and were originally a product of the location and size of these two empires.

In 1952, Turkey faced a hostile, nuclear-armed USSR, and it quickly made the decision to join NATO.

From the point of view of Europe, Turkey was the crossroads between Eastern and Western civilization. From NATO’s perspective, Turkey was vulnerable to attack by the numerically and technically superior forces of the USSR. Nonetheless, Turkey was a valuable ally for two critical reasons. First, because it allowed NATO to station air forces and nuclear missiles on the USSR’s southern border. Second, because Turkey sits astride the narrow Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits that separate the Black and Mediterranean Seas, respectively. This gave NATO forces a strong double “bottle cork” for containing Soviet naval forces in the Black Sea if war were to break out between the USSR and NATO.

Aerial view of Istanbul and the Bosphorus Strait, which connects the Black and Mediterranean Seas.Image by NASA, public domain.

NATO membership also played a practical role in preventing Turkey and Greece from descending into armed conflict over their various territorial disagreements.

In 1974, Turkey invaded Cypress on the premise that it was protecting Turkish Cypriots from Greek oppression. That conflict stretched US-Turkey relations thin, but in the end, the larger issue of the Soviet military threat forced the Greeks and Turks to localize and limit their conflict.

In November of 1979, the Iranian Shia Islamic coup, followed by the invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran, had the side effect of forcing Sunni Muslim Turkey and the US to improve their relations. Then, when the Kurdish separatist PKK launched attacks in southeastern Turkey in 1984, it was an easy decision for the US to condemn the PKK as a terrorist group.

In 1987, Turkey took a major step toward the West by applying for European Economic Community membership. This was a clear and significant financial alignment with the West, and the minority Islamists in Turkey were solidly against the move.

Also in the late 1980s, concerns grew over Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran and against its own citizens. The US and other Western nations became interested in the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq. The fact that NATO member Turkey was simultaneously fighting an internal war with the Kurdish PKK complicated US decisions to establish a relationship with Iraqi Kurds. The Iraqi Kurds had been some of the primary victims of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons. However, from the Turkish point of view, chemical weapons in Iraq were worrisome, but not quite as worrisome as the PKK.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in August of 1990, Turkey again took on greater importance to the US and NATO.

Turkey allowed the US-led coalition to use Turkish airbases to launch air strikes against Saddam Hussein’s military. The US and other coalition members had hoped for Turkey to take a more significant role in the war against Iraq, but internal politics in Turkey were unstable, and the Turkish government declined to become more involved.

By January of 1991, the US and its allies accepted that the UN would not take meaningful action against Iraq. In January and February of that year, the coalition attacked Iraq and liberated Kuwait. Coalition forces dealt a decisive and one-sided blow to the Iraqi military, but did not invade central or northern Iraq.

Against the wishes of the US and NATO, Turkey sent 20,000 heavily armed troops into the Kurdish region of Iraq in 1992, supposedly to strike PKK terror bases.

Many observers speculated that large, untapped oil reserves in Kurdish Iraq were a stronger motivator for the Turkish invasion. Under Western pressure, Turkey withdrew most of its forces within a week. With permission from Saddam Hussein, smaller Turkish incursions into the Kurdish Iraq continued until 2003, when a US-led coalition invaded Iraq and toppled the Hussein regime.

US President Clinton and Turkish PM Tansu Çiller at the White House in 1995. Image by US govt. employee, public domain.

In 1993, Tansu Çiller became the first female Prime Minister of Turkey.

She formed a fragile coalition government with centrist and right wing parties against the opposition of Sunni Islamic fundamentalists. Two years later, Turkey again invaded Kurdish Iraq with 35,000 troops. Again, under heavy pressure from the West, the troops were withdrawn. Tansu Çiller’s coalition government collapsed.

In the political vacuum, a united front of pro-Islamist groups under the Welfare Party banner won elections, but they lacked a majority to form a government. Instead, moderate and right-wing political groups formed an anti-Islamist coalition government. Amidst the political turmoil, Turkey took a strong pro-Western step by entering the European Customs Union.

In 1996, Turkey reversed directions.

The center-right coalition collapsed, and the pro-Islamist Welfare Party formed the first Islamic government in Turkey since 1923. The Welfare Party’s rise to power signaled a shift away from the West and the US. Under pressure from the Turkish military, this Islamist coalition government resigned in 1997, and a center-right coalition took power once more.

The following year, the Turkish government banned the Welfare Party on the grounds that it was plotting an anti-constitutional/anti-secular takeover. The pro-Islamic members of the Welfare Party stepped back and reorganized as the Virtue Party.

In 1999, a devastating earthquake killed 17,000 people in northwest Turkey. In response, the UK pledged £50,000 pounds sterling, and the US pledged US$1 Billion dollars for disaster relief.

In June 2001, the Turkish Constitutional Court banned the opposition pro-Islamic Virtue Party due to its anti-secular/anti-constitutional activities.Apparently the Virtue Party’s principal “virtue” was the destruction of freedom and progress in Turkey.

The following month, the members of the banned Virtue Party formed the pro-Islamist Saadet party.

Saadet morphed into the Justice and Development Party when it realized it could bring in a larger following by pretending to emphasize justice and development. This pro-Islamist party won elections in 2002.

President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister ErdoganImage by US govt. employee, public domain.

Current Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a principal founder of the Justice and Development Party. The continued rise to power of Erdoğan and his pro-Islamist party quickly caused serious complications to US-Turkey relations. Next week, we will look at those complications and the current state of US-Turkey relations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jay Holmes, is an anonymous senior member of the intelligence community and a field veteran from the Cold War through the current Global War on Terror. His writing partner, Piper Bayard, is an author and a recovering attorney. Together, they are the bestselling authors of the international spy thriller, THE SPY BRIDE, to be re-released in March, 2015.

The beauty of a woman is in her having the freedom to be who she is, free to evolve as the unique human she was born to be.

The unfolding of the beauty of a woman knows no barriers for it is within her body to give life, should she choose. In this, she is one with the earth.

Yet, the world of a woman is not equal in opportunity or access. That we still cannot find equanimity in the most basic difference between human beings—gender—speaks volumes about where we are and how far we have to go.

If we cannot equally support men and women in their pursuit of living their truth–and what else is beauty–how we can possibly eliminate the other labels that diminish each one of us?

We are one, each of us a unique thread, our own blend of beauty that is a moment in the tapestry of existence. That the beauty of a woman unfolds with all other human beings is the only opportunity she ever needs.

Perhaps beauty is the key to the door of equality that we cannot seem to unlock. Far too often beauty has been seen as a barrier rather than as an avenue to equanimity.

I died for beauty, but was scarce

Adjusted in the tomb,

When one who died for truth was lain

In an adjoining room.

He questioned softly why I failed?

“For beauty,” I replied.

“And I for truth, -the two are one;

We brethren are,” he said.

And so, as kinsmen met a night,

We talked between the rooms,

Until the moss had reached our lips,

And covered up our names.

~Emily Dickinson~

We are one in our humanness more than we are separate. Unique, yes, but we are not diminished by each other. Rather, we are truly increased. Our truth is our beauty—our path.

As of yet, we are not comfortable in our beauty so we cannot lie down with our truth. We are not yet on the path of equanimity but that we have not given up is to our credit.

To realize the full potential of humanity is to see the beauty in every woman as her truth, her unique contribution to the worldwide web of human beings. There is no one path for everyone but for everyone there is a path.

Once you realize that the road is the goal and that you are always on the road, not to reach a goal, but to enjoy its beauty and its wisdom, life ceases to be a task and becomes natural and simple, in itself an ecstasy.

~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj ~

In the ecstasy of life lies equanimity.

******************************

KM Huber is a writer who learned Zen from a beagle. She believes the moment is all we ever have, and it is enough. In her early life as a hippie, she practiced poetry, and although her middle years were a bit of a muddle, she remains an overtly optimistic sexagenerian, writing prose. She blogs at kmhubersblog.com, may be followed on Twitter @KM_Huber or contacted by email at writetotheranch[at]gmail[dot]com.

Some of you have heard of Klout, a website and app that measures social media activity and ranks social influence. This is not another social media platform, I promise you. This is something you can set up that gives others an indication of the reach and effectiveness of your current social media efforts. And by others, I mean potential bosses and people who notice such things.

Klout is not a beast you have to keep feeding, unless you want to. Some people set it up and never visit again. Others browse the Perks and use the “give Klout +K” feature with abandon. This post sums up some key points and how-to that I share with new authors who ask about Klout.

Klout is NOT about how much time you spend on social media. Klout IS about the engagement that occurs with what you post. For example, if I post 50 Facebook updates, but no one clicks, comments or shares them, and someone else posts three that get shared to pieces, their “engagement” is higher and their Klout score will go up. It’s about quality, not quantity.

The photo to the left of the post is a snip of the navigation pane from my own Klout screen and there are some items there you need to pay attention to if you decide to get set up on Klout.

Overview

This is your “home” screen. You start here when you open the app, and Klout provides suggestions for content you might like to share. During your set-up, Klout asks you what topic you’d like to be influential in, then gives you suggestions from top influencers. I haven’t noticed that Home page sharing effects my Klout all that much.

Create

This allows you to “pick your topics.” I recommend that you do. If you let Klout choose, it might say you’re influential in some bizarre topic like cookies, based on the Facebook update you put up the last time you had late-night cravings. If a topic has gotten tons of play, Klout will think it’s an influential one for you. So if you want to be known for writing or humor or romance, go to “Create” and search those topics out. Otherwise, you’re going to be stuck with things like cookies and peanut butter and cats.

Schedule

Giving you the opportunity to share content from Klout is their way of “throwing you some social media help.” If you’re new or not sure what to share, Klout’s trying to make your life easier by giving you the best dates, times and content for sharing.

Measure

This is where you can drive yourself insane if you don’t watch it. Klout gives you your score and shows which platforms had the most influence. I recommend you pick 2 to 3 platforms you spend the most time on to start. If you spend more time on social media for a while, or get better engagement, your score will go up. If you’re absent for a while, it will likely go down. Don’t worry about it if your Klout score takes a while to perk up – it usually takes a month or two.

Try not to measure yourself against others. Barack Obama’s Klout is 99 and he’s only really on Twitter. You’re no Barack Obama on the influence scale, so 50+ is just peachy. If you’re over 60, you’re rocking social media. Stop worrying.

My 90 Day Klout score. I TOLD you it swings.

Also on this page, you can see which networks are contributing the most to your score. My favorite part of this screen is being able to see which topics and updates are gaining you the most ground. In other words, you can see what’s working. Above is the graph, below is what’s driving those numbers.

At the very bottom of your Klout screen are the Perks and your settings, in case you’d like to add some networks, or change your information. Some of the perks are very cool and it’s up to you if you want to take advantage of them. I rarely do because I rarely go into the app. Plus, just like Facebook and Twitter, you must remember: When software or products are free, it’s because you’re the product.

Klout is happy to measure your effectiveness. In return, they’d appreciate it if you used that effectiveness to promote those perky products.

What do I use Klout for?

I use Google Chrome for my browser and I have the Klout add-in installed. I do this for a specific reason: When I’m browsing in Twitter or in a dashboard like Hootsuite, looking for sources for articles and such, I want to see who has the most influence. If I have two sources in front of me and one has a Klout Score of 42 and the other is 65, guess who I’m using for my source?

Klout has been especially helpful when I’m looking for people “on the ground” to interview for breaking news stories, or disasters. I can run a search for a specific hashtag and then comb through based on Klout. I get my sources faster and that makes me happy.

Below is what it looks like in Twitter.

On #NetNeutrality

Do you see that wide swing in scores? Below is another screen snip, but for Breaking News.

When it comes to freelance writing and interviewing, Klout has been a godsend for me. In the end, it’s always about the quality of our work. However, if we’re spending time “building a social media platform,” it sure is nice to have a place where we can look to see whether we’re gaining any influence.

About Jenny Hansen

By day, Jenny provides training and social media marketing for an accounting firm. By night she writes humor, memoir, women’s fiction and short stories. After 18 years as a corporate software trainer, she’s delighted to sit down while she works.

Jerry Douglas presents
The Earls of Leicester
The Seldom Scene
Blue Highway
Sierra Hull
The Bankesters
Gold Heart
Bluestone
The Grass Cats
Family Friendly from the Sheraton Tysons in Fairfax County Virginia!

The Writer’s Truth

By

Vicki Hinze

Why writers write is a question that goes back to the beginning of storytelling. The reasons are, of course, diverse, and as unique to the writer as the writing produced. None are right or wrong, only different. Here are some of them:

REASONS WRITERS WRITE

Some writers…

Chase the market. They write whatever they think will sell.

Chase demons. They write stories to exorcise demons from their own lives, or from the lives of those who matter to them.

Chase fame. They don’t care what they write provided it gets attention.

Chase purpose. They care about everything they write for a specific purpose which can be good or bad, positive or negative. Whatever the purpose, they pursue it through the writing.

Write to please their readers. If readers tell the author they want more of a specific type of book, the author writes them.

Write to be heard. They have something to say for some reason (disclosed or not) and they want others to hear what they have to say for some reason (disclosed or not). Again, positive or negative, to praise or condemn, to enlighten or distract.

Because they love words. The cadence moves them. The rhythm of stringing words together touches something inside them that makes them feel connected and a part of something bigger than they are.

Because they love to tell stories. They can lie without condemnation or reprisal. Positive or negative, they love stories and the ability of stories to touch lives.

Write for release. It’s the means through which they make sense of chaos, comprehend their world. In their writing, they right the wrongs as they see them.

Write to enlighten. They teach and share experiences to offer others their tips from the trenches.

Write to earn a living. These writers are admittedly rare. There are so many ways that are easier and demand less sacrifice to earn a living.

There are other reasons writers write. And for many writers, the reasons overlap or shift. The reason for writing one book might well not define the author’s reason for writing but the author’s reason for writing a specific work.

The thing is, all the reasons—those mentioned specifically or not—reveal the writer’s truth.

That is, the truth as the writer sees it at the time of the writing.

Truth is truth, we hear over and again. And it is. But our perception of truth can and often does change our understanding of truth. We might with every atom in our body believe something true today—and discover ourselves disillusioned tomorrow. We might discover our truth was based on a faulty premise or a lie. Based on a misunderstanding or a misconception.

The truth is the truth. It’s our understanding that is flawed.

So writers write for many reasons, and over the course of a career, those reasons change many times. That’s what makes it so important that when writers write, they write honestly their truth at the time they write. That’s the best any writer has to offer.

]]>0adminhttp://socialindc.com/myth-movie-harry-potter-and-perseus-want-you-to-stop-being-in-denial/2015-02-26T04:25:33Z2015-02-26T04:25:33ZWarning: Some of this post could be triggery. And if you’re not worried about triggers, but spoilers for Harry Potter would awaken your dragon, don’t read on.

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets…

…a basilisk is lurking in the basements of Hogwarts. Basements are symbolic of the Underworld and the subconscious, by the way. (It’s basically because they’re underground, out of sight, in the dark places that our lives are built on. Interpreting symbols means getting really simplistic sometimes.)

The basilisk is there because Salazar Slytherin didn’t like muggle-borns. He was a wizard-racist. (The Harry Potter wikia was very helpful on this point):

“Slytherin, in his spite of his fellow founders’ acceptance of muggle-borns into the school, left a basilisk deep in the chamber, in hopes that one day his true heir would unleash her to purge all he deemed unworthy to study magic.”

Later on, Tom Riddle (aka The Dark Lord Boy) set the basilisk loose in Hogwarts and it snaked around paralyzing and killing people.

The basilisk is a product of racism, and represents a terrible time of genocide in the Wizarding World.

Nobody likes to talk about that time. In fact, they can’t even say the Dark Lord’s name. They like to pretend it’s all over and done with, and there’s no danger of the Dark Lord ever returning ever again. You might say they’ve repressed the memory. At the very least, they’re in some serious denial about it.

But the basilisk is still in the basement (cough cough subconscious). It’s a reminder that Seriously Bad Shit did go down, and when people come face to face with that, they are paralyzed. Literally. The horror of it is just too much to take.

And the basilisk itself isn’t just minding its own business. It’s angry. It wants some destruction and it slithers around going “Kill. . .kill. . .kill. . .” in a way that would make even the most homicidal maniac roll their eyes and ask “Who wrote that line?”

The basilisk is angry because it’s a child of hate and rage and trauma. Anger it kind of in its blood.

But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt. The memory—or the emotions associated with it—comes up now and then, like a snake darting up suddenly from a hole in the ground. Or it’s like a snake that wraps around you, constricting your movements and your breathing—paralyzing you with fear. Maybe you can’t put your finger on what’s wrong. But something clearly is.

Even if the memory doesn’t get repressed, it’s easy enough to be in denial about pain.

I think this kind of reaction can occur in a culture’s collective consciousness, too.

When the culture experiences trauma (like war, rape, slavery, genocide) sometimes it gets pushed down into a place we can’t talk about, let alone go to. People are often afraid to bring up lingering wounds like this. (For example, talking about the echoes of slavery and Jim Crow laws resonating in modern racism isn’t the most fun party topic ever.)

Maybe instead of a repressed memory, it’s a form of denial. Either way, it’s something we would rather avoid.

But not talking about a thing doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

It’s a hero’s job to save his people, and often that means healing cultural wounds. It means going down into the subconscious where the anger and the pain lives, taking away its power to hurt people, and turning it into something redemptive to make things better.

Like Harry Potter. And like Perseus.

This isn’t a new theme. Let’s hop from Hogwarts to Ancient Greece.

Medusa lived in a cave. She was once a woman, but has been transformed into a hideous gorgon, half-woman and half-serpent.

There are several versions of Medusa’s story, and each is valid. The one that I hear the most today is that she was once a beautiful woman who was raped by a god—usually Poseidon. She tried to hide in the Temple of Athena, but Poseidon found her. And Athena was either jealous of Medusa’s beauty, or she had some pact with Poseidon, or she was out to lunch, because she didn’t protect Medusa.

In fact, Athena got mad at Medusa for “seducing the god in her temple” or some bullcrap, and she turned the woman into a gorgon whose very look could turn men into stone. Then again, maybe Athena thought she was doing Medusa a favor. I mean, if men turn to stone when they look at you, it’s gonna be tough for them to rape you, right?

Either way, Medusa has some serious rage issues. Kinda tends to happen when you’re a product of rape, trauma, and betrayal by the gods.

She goes to live in a cave (Remember what I said about symbolic Underworlds?) and the rest of the people in Ancient Greek Land can usually go about their lives without thinking about that one time Poseidon raped the pretty girl from the village. You might say they’re repressing the memory. Or they’re at least in some serious denial about it.

But Medusa is still there. She’s a reminder that Seriously Bad Rape did go down, and when men come face to face with that, they are paralyzed. Literally. The horror of it is just too much to take, and Medusa’s rage turns them to stone.

So we’ve got two snake monsters in subterranean settings.

Both creatures born of trauma, both of whom are so horrifying that people turn to stone when they see them. It’s one thing to hear about the Bad Things That Went Down. But coming face to face with it, really understanding it, is paralyzing.

Enter our heroes.

Harry Potter goes into the Chamber of Secrets and confronts the basilisk. He has the magical tools to face it that elude the rest of the Wizarding World. He speaks the snake’s language, for one thing, and he has a magical sword.

Perseus goes into Medusa’s cave and confronts the gorgon. He has magical tools to face Medusa. Sometimes he has a shield polished like a mirror, other times he has magical flying Hermes sandals (come on Nike, get on that!), and other times he has a sword or scythe.

So Harry manages to kill the Basilisk, and he takes one of its fangs with him. (Okay, the fang stabs him through the arm, but he still gets the fang and that’s what counts.) He takes the venomous fang back up to the regular world—as though retrieving something from the subconscious and taking it back up to be examined in the light. Later, he’s able to use the fang to kill the Dark Lord. Or at least, part of the Dark Lord.

And Perseus? He manages to kill Medusa, cutting off her head and taking it back up out of the cave into the regular world. Later, he’s able to use her head to kill a monstrous Kraken that’s threatening a maiden.

Harry uses the Dark Lord’s serpent’s venom to protect innocent people from the Dark Lord’s return.

By facing what happened, both heroes gain the power to prevent it from happening again.

It’s pretty beautiful, actually. Harry Potter and Perseus have drawn anger and poison out of a cultural wound, and turned that poison into a protection. This is a badass redemptive transformation. They’d both earn a place at King Arthur’s table.

Moral of the stories? It takes a real hero to confront the Bad Things That Happened, and transform it into something that no longer harms, but heals—and even protects people against future harm.

You are this hero when you face your own demons, when you admit the anger and fear is there, but you don’t allow it to overwhelm you or paralyze you. Instead you transform that hurt and anger into a force that protects you. You learn to stand up for yourself.

You’re going to need some magical weapons, though.

***

L. Marrick is an author, ghostwriter, and suitcase entrepreneur—which is a hipster way of saying she travels and works from her laptop. Her blog, LMarrick.com, is where she writes about history and myth. Her memoir, “Working Girl: 132 Somewhat Moral Values I Learned from a Sex Worker,” tells about when she answered a shady classified ad and wound up working as a sex worker’s personal assistant.

At Oxon Cove Park every third Sunday and Monday of the month, come listen to stories, sing songs, and enjoy other activities. This month, get ready for Earth Day as we focus on our wonderful world and how we can keep it wonderful. It’s never too early to start being a steward of our national parks. Meet Ranger Steph in the Visitor Barn. No fee. For more information, call 301-839-1176.

Every first Sunday of the month, join Ranger Steph and your fellow park-lovers as we clean up the trash that finds its way onto the banks of Oxon Cove. Spend your afternoon in the fresh air, getting some exercise and making a visible difference. Earn service hours needed for your organization. Wear old clothes and shoes that you don’t mind getting wet and muddy. We will provide work gloves. Come alone or bring a group! Come once or every month! Meet in the parking lot, no later than 1:30. This event is canceled if the weather is inclement. Young people under age 18 must be accompanied and supervised by an adult. For more information, call 301-839-1176.

The cancerous growth of ISIS across Syria and Iraq since 2014 both exacerbates and illuminates a series of changes in US-Middle East relations. The most crucial and obvious of these changes is to the relationships between the US and Iraq, Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Turkey.

The simplest case to review from the whirlwind of US foreign policy transformations is the relationship between the US and Iraq.

When ISIS rolled into Iraq, the US-financed and Iraqi-led Iraqi Army collapsed anywhere ISIS appeared or threatened to appear. Only the lightly armed, poorly supplied Kurds halted the tide of ISIS terror. The much better armed, well-financed Iraqi Army proved to be an embarrassment to themselves and to the US administration that had overseen their creation.

The US had, until then, pursued a policy of pretending that their extravagantly well-financed “friend,” Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, was capable of leading a democratic government in Iraq. He never was. Many observers had long felt that Maliki was not capable of leading anything other than a self-promotion campaign. Perhaps it was that particular resemblance to Western politicians that caused some in the US government to mistake Maliki as a functioning politician as opposed to a common circus clown.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-MalikiImage by US government, public domain.

The collapse of the Iraqi Army leadership in response to the ISIS invasion forced the US to stop pretending that Maliki was anything like a “leader.” At the urging of the US, Iraq formed a new government with the less laughable and more pragmatic Haider al-Abadi taking the lead as Prime Minister.

Students of world history will undoubtedly wonder what “US urging” looked like in this case. Was it something dark, complex, and difficult? Did it involve secret assassinations or long propaganda campaigns? No, and no. The US simply explained that without changes, next month’s check would not be arriving.

Rather than expose himself to the justifiable wrath that would soon be unleashed on him by the people of Iraq, Maliki took the pro-Maliki option and stepped down. Under new leadership, the Iraqi military is beginning to resemble a real military, and it appears that, with the assistance of the Kurds and US air support, it will begin to push ISIS out of Iraq. Whether or not this or any future US administration will have learned any long term lessons from the fantastically expensive Maliki debacle remains to be seen.

President Barack Obama Re: Nuclear talks with Iran “. . . according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal.” Obama quote, Feb 9, 2015, joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.Image by Gage Skidmore, wikimedia commons.

A less straightforward and more mystifying case can be seen in changing relations between the US and Iran.

As near as rational observers can determine, based on the information thus far available, the change has been minimal. Previously, US-Iran relations were a case of the US completely distrusting Iran and worrying about its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, but not doing much about it. In return, Iran responded by pretending to not want nuclear weapons while continuing to pretend to love or hate the rest of the world depending on the time of day.

In particular, Iran vacillates between claiming that it is no threat to Israel and claiming that it will annihilate Israel, Zionists, and those that sympathize with Zionists. Iran has not budged an inch from its decades of anti-Western/anti-Israel policies, yet the US is now oddly pretending to trust Iran. Iranian Shia Revolutionary Guards are now operating openly in Iraq with US acquiescence, and the White House now seems convinced that Iran isn’t really developing nuclear weapons after all. This one-sided rapprochement with Iran seems to be an unwise change in US foreign policy.

That leads us to another simple case: US-Israel relations.

The US government’s increasing friendliness toward Iran and the Israeli perception that the US has gone soft on terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah has complicated relations between the two allies. To understand the US alliance with Israel, one must pragmatically ignore personal sympathies and admit that the relationship has been rather one-sided for over half a century.

Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, and Menahem Beginat Camp David AccordsImage from US National Archives, public domain.

Confident of continued US financial and military support, Israel has never made much effort to consider US interests in the region when making foreign policy decisions. Israel has only been able to do this because successive US administrations consistently allowed it. The one major instance of Israel acceding to US pressure was the Camp David Accords. The result of the Accords has been of mixed value from Israel’s point of view. Israel now enjoys better relations with Egypt and Jordan, but Syria, the Palestinians, and Iranian-controlled Hezbollah remain at war with it.

From the US point of view, it often seems like we should expect more cooperation from Israel. From the Israeli point of view, it often seems like trusting in US idealism will lead to the death of Israel. In practical terms, the current tension in US-Israel relations changes almost nothing. It likely will require a change of US administration before US-Israel relations improve, and there is no guarantee that the next administration will seek closer relations with Israel. In the meantime, the US will continue to send the checks.

One if the more complex foreign policy cases in the Middle East is that of US-Egypt relations.

The US relationship with Egypt since the Camp David Accords in 1978 has been fairly stable. The Mubarak dynasty did what it wanted, left Israel alone, and received lots of cash from the US. After the Mubarak dynasty collapsed in 2011, the Egyptian military took control of the country until elections were held in 2011. Some Middle Eastern potentates wondered why the US had so quickly abandoned “their guy” in Egypt. In any event, the US had little influence in the Egyptian version of the “Arab Spring” that lead to the “Mubarak Winter.”

In 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood won elections in Egypt, and Mohammed Morsi became the president. Morsi then quickly forgot his centrist moderate views and proceeded to try to consolidate power in his office while moving Egypt toward an Islamic theocracy. Many believed the elections were rigged, and As Morsi became more theocratic, many of his own supporters felt betrayed.

In 2013, Morsi was removed from office by the Egyptian military. Although he and his radical supporters had clearly lost the support of much of the membership of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest of Egypt, the US reacted negatively to what they considered a coup. As required by US law, coups prevent any US aid from continuing. The rule is often ignored. In the case of Egypt, the administration wavered, and most of the military and other financial aid to Egypt continued. Nonetheless, the US response to the Egyptian military’s removal of Morsi aggravated the Egyptian military and many civilians. From their point of view, they had saved Egypt from becoming the “next Iran.” Morsi had been positioning himself as increasingly anti-West, anti-US, and anti-Saudi, so most Egyptians expected the US to be glad for Morsi’s removal.

Egyptians Celebrate Morsi’s OusterImage from Voice of America, July 7, 2013, public domain.

In 2014, military leader Abdul al-Sisi won the presidential election. In theory, US-Egypt relations became simpler again with democracy appearing to be functioning in Egypt. The US was happy to have the sticking points gone from US foreign aid, but al-Sisi now has little confidence in his friendship with the US.

One obvious and interesting symptom of the cooling of US-Egypt relations is that Egypt has signed an agreement with France for the purchaser of French-made fighters. Anyone in the US government that happens to be awake this week might ask why, at a time when US unemployment is so high, US tax dollars are going to purchase French-made fighters for the Egyptian Air Force.

At the same time, Egypt has now joined in in the fight against ISIS, though they have been clear that they are operating on their own and not as a part of a US coalition. As in the case of Israel, it will likely require a new US administration for US-Egypt relations to improve. Whether or not the next US administration will develop better relations with Egypt or wish to continue foreign aid to Egypt remains to be seen.

Next week in Part Two, we will look at the changing relationship of the US and Turkey.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jay Holmes, is an anonymous senior member of the intelligence community and a field veteran from the Cold War through the current Global War on Terror. His writing partner, Piper Bayard, is an author and a recovering attorney. Together, they are the bestselling authors of the international spy thriller, THE SPY BRIDE, to be re-released in March, 2015.